[Textcritic]

I didn't vote in the first poll, but picked "dislike" in this one.

This was not a good trade because both the players involved are expensive and have dramatically underperformed. It's impossible to get around that. However, I understand this trade, and I think the net result will be a better overall team for this season. It boils down to having an expensive player who will never live up to the value of his deal, but with Lucic there is at least some surety that his place on the roster will be less detrimental—Neal was bad on the third/fourth line, and he was not nearly good enough to play in the top six. Lucic at least looks somewhat more functional. Moreover, I think there is enough evidence surrounding the deal and the timing of it to show that the Flames were highly motivated to move Neal; so much so that the cost was deemed an acceptable risk. That in itself is pretty telling.

I also think that while Neal will likely out-produce Lucic next year, this deal will probably not be as beneficial to the Oilers as much as it will be to the Flames. Edmonton will still be awful, while Calgary could see a tangible benefit from having a guy like Lucic patrolling the bottom six.

So, in the end, it was a bad deal; it was one that likely had to be made; it was probably the best deal the Flames could have made; it probably won't hurt them for the next season where it matters most right now, which is on the ice.